Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 5, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000219

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 1000066335 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Site with a new 4-storey building comprised of residential and commercial uses.

Reference Number: 24104092OP

Property Address: 33 Lock Street

Municipality: St. Catherines

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000260

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000219

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 42(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 1000066335 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Refusal of Application

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Site with a new 4-storey building comprised of residential and commercial uses.

Reference Number: City File No. 24 117398 HERT

Property Address: 33 Lock Street

Municipality: St. Catherines

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000219

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000219

OLT Case Name: 1000066335 Ontario Inc. v. St. Catherines (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 1000066335 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Site with a new 4-storey building comprised of residential and commercial uses.

Reference Number: 24104091ZA

Property Address: 33 Lock Street

Municipality: St. Catherines

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000261

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000219

Heard: April 20 and 21, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1000066335 Ontario Inc.	Daniel Artenosi Rowan Barron
City of St. Catharines	Sylvain Rouleau

DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1On April 20 and 21, 2026, the Tribunal convened a hearing to consider a proposed settlement in these proceedings. The proceedings arise from appeals of the refusal by the City of St. Catharines (“City”) of proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments regarding the property located at 33 Lock Street (“subject property”) in the City and the City’s denial of a Permit to demolish an existing structure on the subject property.

21000066335 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) proposes the development of a multi-level mixed-use building on the subject property. It would be five storeys tall, contain 23 dwelling units, have 78 square metres of commercial space, and have 23 underground parking spaces. The subject property is located in the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District. The existing building on the subject property would be demolished.

3The subject property is designated as “Neighbourhood Residential” and “Medium Density Residential” in the City’s Official Plan. The proposed Official Plan Amendment would increase the number of allowable residential units on the site from 12 to 23 and increase the maximum permitted height of structures on the subject property from 9 metres (“m”) to 14 m. The subject property is zoned “Medium Density Residential (R3-7)” under the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2013-282. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would add site-specific provisions under the R3 zone tailored to the proposed development.

4As noted above, the subject property is located within the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. A demolition Permit is required under s. 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act to permit the demolition of the existing building and to build the proposed development. The subject property is not individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

5On January 14, 2026, the Tribunal was advised by the Appellant that the Parties had reached a proposed settlement in principle resolving the appeals. The Tribunal subsequently scheduled the hearing to consider the proposed settlement, which was held on April 20 and 21, 2026.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

6At the hearing to consider the proposed settlement, the Tribunal received materials from the Appellant, including the Affidavit of Bruce Hall, affirmed on April 15, 2026, who is a land use planner, and the Affidavit of Philip Evans, sworn on April 15, 2026, who is a licensed architect. Both Mr. Hall and Mr. Evans gave oral evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Hall to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. It qualified Mr. Evans to provide opinion evidence in the areas of architecture and cultural heritage planning and architecture.

7The Tribunal also received a Participant statement, filed by Wendy Stapleford, who lives adjacent to the subject property. In her statement, Ms. Stapleford expressed concerns regarding heritage preservation and demolition, the proposed zoning standards, traffic and public safety, housing affordability, community composition, and neighbourhood character and livability.

Land Use Planning Evidence

8Mr. Hall opined that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and the proposed Permit to demolish the existing building on the subject property satisfy the applicable statutory tests. He stated that the proposed instruments and Permit have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those on: the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; the adequate provision of a full range of housing; and the appropriate location of growth and development. He stated that the subject property is in a transitionary location between a residential area and a commercial area representing an ideal location for higher densities using modest forms of intensification. He opined that the proposed development represents a compact form of development with contextually appropriate intensification for a residential site adjacent to a commercial core area.

9Mr. Hall opined that the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), and in particular its policies on growth, housing, settlement areas, economic development, infrastructure and services, transportation, public spaces, and cultural heritage. He said the location of the subject property supports intensification, is suitable for a mixed-use development, and is connected to existing infrastructure, facilities, and transportation networks.

10Mr. Hall opined that the proposed instruments conform to the Niagara Official Plan, including its policies on population growth, housing, transportation, economic development, and infrastructure and services. He opined that the proposed instruments also conform with the City’s Official Plan in that they implement the vision and guiding principles of the Official Plan through a balanced approach to intensification which contemplates an efficient, compact, vibrant and pedestrian-oriented form of development with housing options and enhancements to the public realm that would contribute to the vitality of the community at an appropriate location for growth and development within an urban area. He stated that subject property’s location at the edge of the existing residential neighbourhood within the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District adjacent to the commercial core area supplies an appropriate interface by providing a transitional height and density between the two areas. He said the proposed development allows for the redevelopment of an underutilized property in a compact, mixed-use built form that would result in a more efficient use of land, supported by existing services and infrastructure. He stated that pursuant to policy 3.1.5 of the City’s Official Plan, a heritage impact assessment was prepared, which found that the existing structure on the subject property lacks integrity to effectively contribute to the Heritage Conservation District’s cultural heritage value. He also opined that the proposed development implements the Official Plan’s urban design principles and conforms to its built form, community identity, natural environment, public realm, accessibility, safety, and landscaping policies. He opined that the proposed development is compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area and has appropriate setbacks, height, and massing to help transition between the residential neighbourhood and adjacent commercial area. He said the subject property is well serviced by public transit and the proposed development is designed to be pedestrian-oriented.

11Mr. Hall opined that the proposed instruments have appropriate regard for the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District Guidelines in that the proposed development would conserve the cultural heritage value of the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District through the sensitive design of the proposed new building.

12In response to the Participant Statement filed by Wendy Stapleford, Mr. Hall stated that the proposed zoning changes are appropriate in that they facilitate transition between the residential and commercial areas. He opined that the proposed development satisfies the applicable cultural heritage tests and would expand the housing options in the area. He said that based on the layout and modest size of the proposed development, there would be no traffic or public safety issues. He opined that the proposed development is compatible with the existing community composition and neighbourhood character.

Architecture and Cultural Heritage Planning Evidence

13Mr. Evans opined that the proposed development is designed in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. He said the proposed development would contribute to the character of the Heritage Conservation District and would achieve conservation by respecting and reinforcing the scale of adjacent properties, with a sensitive deployment of massing and materiality that would reinforce character defining features within the Heritage Conservation District. He added that the entrance to the proposed development would be comprised of a structure built into the development that reflects how the existing building on the subject property likely originally appeared.

14Mr. Evans stated that the existing structure on the subject property does not have cultural heritage value. He stated that little of the original structure remains beyond its foundation and a portion of the frame and that there are no identifiable features worthy of conservation on the subject property. He opined that it does not merit protection under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and does not contribute to the Heritage Conservation District.

15Mr. Evans opined that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and the proposed Permit have regarding to the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District Guidelines by: encouraging the vitality of the area by creating new residential units and new commercial space adjacent to the commercial core; using the width and depth of the subject property to limit increases in height; maintaining the compact built form and low profile of the residential area; supporting the contextual landscape features on the subject property; and contributing to the character of the Heritage Conservation District through a context-sensitive design that responds to the unique characteristics of the subject property and its surroundings.

16Mr. Evans opined that the proposed Permit to demolish the existing building satisfies the applicable statutory tests. He stated that the proposed Permit has regard for the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act on the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, and archaeological interest. Mr. Evans stated that it is consistent with the heritage and other policies in the PPS, including policy 4.6.1, as it protects, manages and uses built heritage resources in a manner that ensures that their cultural heritage value and interest is retained. He also opined that it conforms to the heritage policies of the Niagara Official Plan, including those in policies 6.5.1.1 and 6.5.1.5 and conforms to the heritage policies of the City’s Official Plan, including those in policies 3.2.6 and 3.2.7. He opined that the proposed Permit is in the public interest and represent good heritage planning.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

17Based on the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Hall and Mr. Evans, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments facilitate a modest form of intensification through a mixed-use development in an appropriate location where there is transition between commercial and residential uses. The Tribunal finds that the location of the subject property supports intensification, is suitable for a mixed-use development, and is appropriately connected to existing infrastructure, facilities, and transportation networks. The proposed instruments provide for efficient, compact development and a broadening of housing and retail options in the community. The Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the Niagara Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan.

18Based on Mr. Evans’ uncontested evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed demolition Permit satisfies the applicable statutory tests as it ensures that the cultural heritage values of the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District are protected. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, the existing structure on the subject property has no cultural heritage value. The Tribunal finds that the proposed Permit has regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, complies with the requirements in the Ontario Heritage Act, and has regard to the Heritage Conservation District Guidelines.

19The Tribunal has also considered the Participant statement filed by Ms. Stapleford and finds that her concerns regarding heritage preservation and demolition, zoning, traffic and public safety, housing affordability, community composition, and neighbourhood character and livability have been comprehensively addressed by Mr. Hall.

20The Parties requested that the Tribunal issue an Interim Order to allow time for the final details of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to be completed. The Tribunal agrees with this course of action.

INTERIM ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal by 1000066335 Ontario Inc. of its application for an amendment to the City of St. Catharines Official Plan (Garden City Plan) as amended, in respect of the lands municipally known as 33 Lock Street in the City of St. Catharines, is allowed, in part, and the Official Plan Amendment attached as Attachment “1” to this Interim Order is approved in principle.

22THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the appeal by 1000066335 Ontario Inc. of its application for an amendment to the City of St. Catharines Zoning By-law No. 2013-283, as amended, is allowed, in part, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment “2” to this Interim Order is approved in principle.

23THE TRIBUNAL ALSO ORDERS THAT the appeal by 1000066335 Ontario Inc. of its application for a permit under Part V, Sections 42(1) and (2.1) of the Ontario Heritage Act to permit the demolition of the existing structure on the Subject Site, and the erection of a new building and structures on the subject property, is allowed, in part, and the City of St. Catharines is directed, in principle, to issue a permit authorizing the demolition, and the alteration of and erection on the subject property substantially in accordance with the architectural plans and drawings prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated December 19, 2025 attached as Attachment “3” to this Interim Order.

24THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order approving the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and directing issuance of the Permit, contingent upon receipt and approval by the Tribunal of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in its the final form.

25THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

26THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT if the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Monday, November 16, 2026, the Parties shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3